Bourdieu, Foucault and Gramsci´s Perspectives on Education Systems

Bourdieu’s, Foucault’s and Gramsci’s contributions in sociology and philosophy to the conflict theory⁶ recognized that there are major structures of power and hegemony which create division of power and class. Bourdieu understood the constitution of power in education systems through dominant spheres (fields) (Bourdieu, 1990), fields that are usually formed by privileged classes who determine the rules of the system (Bourdieu, 2005). Gramsci and Foucault observed the ways of control and domination at the individual level, and set the basis to study the exertion and reproduction of power over individuals or specific groups in specific institutions (Gramsci, 1957 and Foucault, 1991).

6Conflict theory exposes the inequalities of a given social system from a macro perspective. As a sociological perspective, conflict theory is based on class conflict boosted through social, political or resource inequalities; and it is also based in structuralism as the framework that addresses society as a construction of different institutions. (Collins, 1975)

18

Society, as an abstract construction, is represented as a social space in which different individuals interact and social relations take part (Luhmann, N., 1992).

Marxist tradition establishes that economic forces are protagonist of the division of the social space. Bourdieu’s studies of society, in contrast to Marx, stated that society is constituted as a major social field where different fields⁷ have their own system and agents that struggle for the permanence of the field and their positions:

“Every field is the site of a more or less overt struggle over the definition of the legitimate principles of division of the field” (Bourdieu, 1985: 734). Bourdieu’s perspective of the field recognizes the existence of social spaces, which means that individuals have a space in a social structure, space that is determined through social and environmental features and provides them with specific resources, which may allow them the stay and transmission of the social space. Similar to Bourdieu, Archer (1979) explained social spaces through social distribution of power and recognized that the position of individuals in society is related to the amount of capital they own. Thus, society is a social space that embrace circles of individuals with similar features and amounts of capital or power. A social space allows actors to live there, permits the maintenance of a hegemonic culture and the transmission of features and capital, which contributes to the perpetuation of a circle (or field) (Bourdieu, 1989). If we consider society as a major social space that embodies different fields constructed through institutions and actors, we can recognize fields of education, culture, economy, politics etc.

Although Bourdieu, Foucault and Gramsci neither belong to the same theoretical schools, nor share principles to explain class or power reproduction in society, they agree that there are major structures “super-structures” (Gramsci) and “fields”

(Bourdieu) in society that generally form, control and reproduce the rules of dominant actors; they exert domination through determined mechanisms of power – “sub-powers” or “micro-physics of power” (Foucault, 1991) – and agree that, in the process of reproduction, the education system plays a major role. Although Bourdieu’s and Foucault’s ideas have little in common, they are agreed on the composition of fields of power “subfields”. For Bourdieu, fields of power were formed within the economy and markets, universities and the general system of education as well as within the family (Bourdieu, 1992, 1991). Each field contains the rules determined by those with more power, or in dominant positions in that

7 Each different field within society can be identify as a subfield, meaning that it is a field that is subset to a given field.

19 field. Foucault also recognized the presence of fields of power within “family, state, relations of education or production” (Foucault and Gordon, 1980: 139), but he argued that fields are similar and homogeneous, in contrast to Bourdieu, who asseverated that each field has its own rules, institutions and characteristics.

Through the theoretical constructing of the field, Bourdieu explained which capitals and values are more recognized in each of the fields. Fields are relatively independent; however, they are not completely autonomous, and their degree of autonomy can be observed to the extent that a field requires capital and legitimation from other fields (Hilgers and Mangez, 2015). Capital and distribution of resources in social structure are framed in different kinds of capitals: economic, social and cultural capital (Bourdieu, 1986, 1973); and the sum of capitals possessed by the individuals determine their access to institutions and to a field. For example, economic capital is the capital easily convertible into money which provides immediate access to goods; social capital and cultural capital are identified as embodied resources; social capital is embraced in networks with a certain institutionalization and recognition and cultural capital is embraced within institutions, titles and cultural goods (Bourdieu, 1986). By the construction of the concept of cultural capital, Bourdieu intended to explain the inequality given in different social classes where education and culture are involved: “unequal scholastic achievement of children originating from the different social classes by relating academic success, i.e., the specific profits which children from different classes and class fractions can obtain in the academic market, to the distribution of cultural capital between the classes and class fractions” (Bourdieu, 1986:243). More recently, Edgerton and Roberts (2014) introduced social and cultural capitals as driving forces that reproduce intergenerational inequality. This is represented, for example in the similarity of profession between a person and his father, which can provide privileges especially to established classes, and it is still present in contemporary societies (Rehbein, Maldonado et al., 2015).

Gramsci and Bourdieu recognized the relevance of cultural practices acquired in families, where in more educated families learn to read children, play an instrument, discipline for studying, and how to speak properly, reflecting the language codes of social etiquette. Gramsci saw these practices as a process of absorption or

“breathing in” (1971:172) that facilitates the learning process of children who enjoy this environment, something that Bourdieu introduced years later as cultural capital

20

(Bourdieu, 1986). Both authors agreed that possession of cultural capital may facilitate or block learning processes and foster inequality in learning. Gramsci suggested that cultural practices should be taught in public schools in order to bring about learning equality to the particular benefit of children from rural families.